technical assignment ii - pennsylvania state university · technical assignment three is intended...

CHRISTIE SMITH

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

2012 CAPSTONE PROJECT

ADVISOR: CRAIG DUBLER

SUBMITTED: 11/16/2011

TECHNICAL ASSIGNMENT III

7700 ARLINGTON BLVD.

FALLS CHURCH, VA

7700 Arlington Blvd. | Falls Church, VA

Technical Assignment III | Smith 11/16/2011 Page | 2

Executive Summary

Technical Assignment Three is intended to identify areas of the project that are good candidates for

research, alternative methods, value engineering, and schedule compression for 7700 Arlington Blvd. The

project is made up of three existing structures, the Northwest, Southwest, and Main building, that have a

total square footage of 684,651. The Northwest and Southwest buildings are four stories tall and the Main

building is two stories tall. This project overall incorporates a variety of complex systems in order to

comply with BRAC BP 198. The largest challenge for this project is to complete the job on time and

under budget. Raytheon, the prior tenants, will be occupying the structure for the beginning construction

mobilization while DHHQ, the future tenants, will be occupying two out of the three buildings during the

second phase of construction.

The three constructability issues for this project were material procurement, the control system in the

Northwest Building, and coordination changes. Each issue resulted in a unique challenge for the project

team especially because the schedule was not allowed to change and the impact of the cost had to be

minimal. The critical path of the project schedule initially starts with demolition/abatement, and continues

through to structure, façade/roof, enclosure milestones, building core/shell infrastructure, elevators, and

tenant improvements. Ensuring mild impacts to the tenant improvements is critical for this job because

DHHQ needs to occupy the space as soon as possible. A few schedule acceleration scenarios were

implemented on 7700 Arlington Blvd. and each scenario talks about the issue that occurred, how the

project team developed a plan, and how the plan was put into place. Since the project team, owner,

subcontractors, architects, and engineers worked together from the very beginning of the job there were

minimal value engineering topics according to the project manager. The way the project team handled

value engineering is discussed as well as a few suggestions that could have been developed. A brief

summary of the results of critical industry issues from attending the 2011 PACE Roundtable Meeting on

November 9, 2011 are discussed as well as potential research topics for my project for the spring

semester.

Through the project manager interview and the 2011 PACE Roundtable Meeting four critical problems

have been identified. The problem identification has helped formulate four different technical analysis

options for 7700 Arlington Blvd. These areas of analysis include an integrated project delivery approach,

a new mechanical system in the Northwest Building, resequencing of certain renovation activities, and

creating a short interval production schedule. Each analysis discussed provides insight into possible

research topics for the spring semester.



Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………...2

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………………...3

Constructability Challenges……………………………………………………………………………..4

Schedule Acceleration Scenarios………………………………………………………………………..7

Value Engineering Topics……………………………………………………………………………….9

Critical Industry Issues………………………………………………………………………………….10

Problem Identification & Technical Analysis Options……….……………………………………….14

References………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

Appendix A: 2011 PACE Roundtable Worksheet…………………………………………………….18



Constructability Challenges

Material Procurement

One of the biggest constructability challenges for 7700 Arlington Blvd. was figuring out what material

was needed for initial start-up. Usually for a new building there is time to arrange for different material

deliveries to the site, but because this is a renovation project there was minimal time to get the materials

on site for project start-up. James G. Davis Construction worked closely with the other subcontractors to

formulate a plan from the very beginning as to what was going to be needed.

Because this project was a renovation job and Raytheon, the prior tenants, were still occupying the

buildings, it made it that much more difficult to get the materials that were needed to the jobsite for

project start-up. One huge hurdle that James G. Davis

Construction went through prior to occupying the building

was trying to figure out what the existing conditions were.

Figure 1 illustrates the type of drawings that they had with

this one being pretty decent compared to some others. The

reason they had a hard time with the drawings was because

they did not know if the existing condition drawings were

correct. These buildings were built in the range of the

1950s to the 1980s, so there was a wide range of drawings

that had to be sorted out. Since Raytheon was still

occupying the building; Davis Construction had limited

access as well.

With only having limited access to the buildings, Davis Construction decided they had to come up with a

better solution than just guessing what types of material was needed for the job. They began taking field

measurements to recreate the buildings and site in a BIM model. The BIM model was used to fabricate

materials in order to get them on site for start-up. Creating the model was probably the best idea prior to

7700 Arlington Blvd. starting because this job has been on

the fast track from the very beginning and making one

mistake on a big order could really put the project behind.

According to the Project Manager, this was the biggest

hurdle they had to go through for the entire project because

of the time that is invested and all the outlying factors of not

knowing what else is in the building that was missed and

would cause other headaches down the road.

By being able to do site measurements and a BIM model

prior to the project starting, James G. Davis Construction was

able to get their materials on site early enough that they were actually waiting for Raytheon to vacate the

building so they could get started. This could not have been done this well without the help and

coordination of the subcontractors. Figure 2 shows part of the progressive collapse steel system on site

waiting to be installed. There were no issues when it came to storing material on site because of how large

the site is.

Figure 1: Existing Conditions Drawing

Figure 2: Progressive Collapse Steel System

Storage Area

Photo Courtesy of Davis Construction




Control System in the Northwest Building

Since there was limited access prior to project start-up, there was no way of telling what it looked like

above the ceilings in each building. This posed a problem in the Northwest Building because the control

system for the mechanical system was

supposed to remain. The image to the right

outlines the Northwest Building for reference.

When James G. Davis Construction opened up

the ceilings it was a huge mess. There were so

many wires that it was pretty impossible to

know where all of them went as well as know

which wires were for the control system. What

ended up happening was that Davis

Construction took out the wrong wires

unknowingly. The control wires were

completed demolished posing a huge hurdle

into the project. It ended up being an honest mistake, but it was a mistake that would cost them. The

picture below is an example of what the inside of 7700 Arlington Blvd. looked like once demolition

began. This goes to show that because of their limited access early on in the project, it created many

coordination and constructability issues throughout the job. The whole reason why the owner wanted to

keep the control system in the first place was because the budget is limited.

Figure 4: Ceiling Demolition at 7700 Arlington Blvd.

In order to overcome this challenge, the project team took responsibility for the matter and was able to

negotiate a joint settlement with the owner. The total mistake cost around $150,000, but at the end of the

day the owner will receive a better product. Originally the Southwest and Main Building control systems

were tied together, but because of the mistake all three systems will be tied together which in the long run

will benefit the owner tremendously. This constructability challenge was a huge learning lesson, but

sometimes mistakes can lead to better and different opportunities in order to keep the construction of the

project moving.

Figure 3: Northwest Building Site Map





Coordination Changes

James G. Davis wrote an RFI asking about dunnage for the huge air handling units on the roof. Little did

they know that this was going to open a can of worms because the architect and engineer came back

saying there was no dunnage in the design as well as

the appropriate acoustical requirements. It is great

that this issue was caught, but the issue came too late

in the project. Not only did a design have to be done,

but other trades were impacted immensely in order to

keep the job on schedule. The image to the left is one

of the air handling units once installed.

The plan was to build the Main Building top down,

but because of the change they were forced to re-

sequence the construction. Since each air handling

unit was right over the core of the building, the tradesmen were forced to work around the perimeter of

the building first. The design took about four months to process, so in the mean time the demolition team

had to core drill for the progressive collapse steel system starting with the first floor followed by the

second floor. They had to repeat this process for each section in order to get the progressive collapse steel

system installed for building turnover which took place in August 2011. The other reason for stacking the

demolition was because cutting holes in the slab for steel means water would be entering in places that

were not wanted. In order to solve both issues at once the progressive collapse steel system would be

installed as soon as the core drilling was done for each column. Below are two pictures of a steel column

for the progressive collapse steel system being installed into 7700 Arlington Blvd.

This job is unique because there is challenges everyday that the project team has to overcome and they

always have to be on their toes in order to keep the job on track. Having the demolition workers move

from the first floor to the second and back down to the first floor was inefficient, but it had to be done in

order to get the steel installed on time. Ultimately, the building had to be finished in August and there was

no way of changing that, so by having everyone on the site work together great outcomes occur. This

challenge proved to be a success and at the end of the day was completed on time even with the design

changes.

Figure 5: Roof Top Air Handling Units

Figure 6: Installation of Progressive Collapse Steel System





Schedule Acceleration Scenarios

Project Critical Path

The critical path for 7700 Arlington Blvd. is illustrated

below in Figure 8. There are seven main activities on the

critical path and the job is divided into two phases. One

big risk prior to the project starting was the material

procurement process because if James G. Davis

Construction fell behind on this task, they would already

delay the project. This could not happen due to the fast

pace schedule requested by the owner. The Northwest

and Main Building make up phase one and the Southwest

Building is phase two which is shown in the image to the

right. In the project manager’s opinion, the critical path

originated with material procurement because they were not allowed to go any further without the

material they needed for project start-up.

The first three activities on the

critical path are vital to getting the

building enclosed while the last

three activities on the critical path

are important for building

turnover. Granted they are all

ultimately significant for building

turnover, but by breaking it up, it

is a little easier to fully understand

the project team’s thought process.

Demolition/Abatement started the

critical path after material

procurement. Each building had

different systems to be demolished

as well as different areas that

needed abatement. The

progressive collapse steel system

and seismic bracing make up the

bulk of the structure that had to be installed. The biggest risks associated with completing the project on

time were installing the steel in every building. The façade could not be installed before the steel system

was placed due to the nature of the steel system. One of the biggest ongoing risks associated with

completing the project on time is making sure the tenant improvements do not fall behind. Ultimately, if

the six items on the critical path fall behind at all, then the tenant team will have to make it up which

would be hard to do with the amount of work that must be completed inside the building.

PHASE I PHASE II

Figure 7: Two Phase Building Sequence

Figure 8: Critical Path for 7700 Arlington Blvd.




Acceleration Techniques

Through coordination issues and project mishaps different acceleration techniques were utilized on this

job. The owner’s number one goal on the project was schedule followed by cost, so with having that in

mind the general contractor’s team had to make a few changes throughout the project. The demolition

portion of the project ended up taking longer than expected which impacted the steel installation. In order

to accelerate the schedule the project team came up with a plan to do both at the same time. The perimeter

of the building was now scheduled to be demoed first before the core of the

building. A twenty foot perimeter was demoed and abatement had to be

done as well in order to core drill the holes for the progressive collapse

steel system. This constructability issue was also discussed in an earlier

section. In order to keep the steel moving the core drilling crew had to drill

a hole for the columns in each floor before they moved to the next section.

For example in the figure to the left, I have illustrated the basic idea of

what the team had to do. They started with hole number one and worked

their way up to hole number three and repeated this process for each

section so that the steel column could be placed and the schedule could

stay on track. By having to remove the core drilling machine and move it

from floor to floor instead of keeping it on floor, it obviously had an

impact on the cost. The cost information for this technique was not

available at the time of communication with the project manager.

Another acceleration technique that James G. Davis Construction utilized was working two shifts due to

the fact that this job is on the fast track. The demolition crew, the iron worker’s crew, and other tradesmen

all worked a double shift in order to get the schedule back up to speed. By creating a plan of such

complexity and demand, it poses many safety issues that the project team made sure they were aware of

because many workers of different trades were always working in the same area with minimal work

space.

One of the most beneficial acceleration techniques developed in the early phase of design was the creation

of a BIM model. This not only allowed the project team, owner,

designers, and engineers to better understand the building but the

whole team was able to design a plan for most of the construction

process. The figure to the right shows a Navisworks model of 7700

Arlington Blvd. The progressive collapse steel system as well as

the façade was coordinated greatly through the use of this program.

Without 4D modeling, the schedule for this project could have

been a lot longer than necessary.

Overall, there were a few great plans used on 7700 Arlington Blvd. in order to accelerate the schedule. At

times these plans were used due to the fact that the schedule was falling behind, but that is the nature of a

renovation project. It is hard to predict what the demolition crew will find and even if there is float built

into this activity, it may not be enough which is why good project management teams are able to find a

technique that will work and fix the problem.

Figure 9: Core Drill Sequencing

Diagram

Figure 10: Navisworks Model




Value Engineering Topics

After speaking with the senior project manager for this job, there was very limited value engineering done

on this project. In her opinion, the little that was done made no true impact on the job due to the nature of

the project. 7700 Arlington Blvd. is an extremely fast pace job for the size of it with construction set for

about 20 months. Therefore, this project missed the opportunity to implement value engineering

techniques that could have potentially helped with the overall time and money.

There are many factors that play into why value engineering was not utilized with the main reason being

that this project was stripped to its bare bones from the very beginning. There was little room to make

improvements with the budget that was allocated. The most important goal for the owner was making

sure the project was done on time due to BRAC BP 198. James G. Davis Construction was included from

the very beginning of the project which resulted in constant communication with the owner and designer.

The design that was created incorporated items that would have been value engineered later in the project,

but because of a collaborative work environment the design was created as lean as possible.

Since this job is a renovation, there were a few items that remained in the building. The biggest item that

everyone decided to keep was the existing mechanical system in the Northwest Building. There would be

minimal changes, but for the most part kept the same. Since the issue with the control wires, discussed

previously, happened there has been more changes overall. One idea behind this headache would be to

value engineer a different system and compare the advantages and disadvantages to the existing

mechanical system to see if it would have been worth installing a new system right from the beginning.

Another item that the general contractor recommended to the owner in order to save money was

exchanging custom elevator cabs to standard elevator cabs. This did not save the owner a great deal of

money, but it is one example where a form of value engineering was used on this project.

Overall, I believe that James G. Davis Construction worked well with everyone who helped out with the

design and coordination of this project that there was no real need to implement value engineering. Value

engineering takes time and that is the one item there was none of for this project. Through the constant

coordination and communication with others, Davis Construction was able to bid this job under budget

for the owner which proves that working as a team from the beginning is extremely beneficial and value

engineering was incorporated throughout the whole process of design.



Critical Industry Issues

*Reference Appendix A for the 2011 PACE Roundtable Worksheet

The 2011 PACE Roudtable Meeting was held on November 9th

, 2011 at The Penn Stater Conference

Center. The meeting is an open forum discussion in which key topics selected by the advisory board are

discussed by students and industry practitioners. The agenda for the meeting included two break-out

sessions in the morning followed by two industry panels and a focus group in the afternoon. The morning

break-out session topics are outlined below.

Break-Out Session I

1. Energy Management Services

2. Assembling/Procuring an Integrated Team

3. BIM Services for the Owner – The Role of the Design and Construction Professional

Break-Out Session II

1. Learning Systems for Training a Sustainable Workforce

2. Integrated Decisions for High Performance Retrofit Projects

3. Strategies and Opportunities for taking BIM into the Field

The afternoon panel discussions were about differentiation in a down economy and hands-on learning in

design and construction. All of these sessions were useful for finding interesting research topics for thesis.

Since there was a lot of information to gather and understand, the last part of the day was to sit with an

industry member and discuss the different research ideas we gathered from the earlier sessions. This

proved to be helpful in many ways because there were at maximum three students to an industry member

and we received a “real-world” perspective on the research we were interested in.

The PACE Roundtable Meeting was a great way to get industry opinions on what companies are trying to

do to advance themselves for the future. It was a rewarding day and it ended up being extremely

educational for research topics that relate to 7700 Arlington Blvd. The two sessions that I attended in the

morning were assembling/procuring an integrated team and strategies and opportunities for taking BIM

into the field. I chose to go to the first break-out session because I find that it would be valuable to be able

to work as a true IPD team on projects, especially a renovation project. As for the second break-out

session, I chose to pursue BIM because it was used on 7700 Arlington Blvd. and it is interesting to hear

what other companies are doing to implement BIM not only in the office, but out in the field with the

superintendents, workers, and other invested project employees. My industry contact from this section as

well as every other section is Bill Moyer from James G. Davis Construction Corporation.

Break-Out Session I – Assembling/Procuring an Integrated Team

Before Break-Out Session I is discussed it is vital to understand the meaning of IPD. According to ipd-

ca.net, Integrated Project Delivery is, “A project delivery approach that integrates people, systems,

business structures and practices into a process that collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of

all participants to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste, and maximize



efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction. In all cases, integrated projects are

uniquely distinguished by highly effective collaboration among the owner, the prime designer, and the

prime constructor, commencing at early design and continuing through to project handover.”

(McGraw_Hill)

The main conclusion I got out of the break-out session and what surprised me the most was that trust is

the main issue when it comes to forming an IPD team. This formed when we discussed what the barriers

where when assembling/procuring an integrated team. Trust is the main issue because being able to

coordinate and make decisions amongst many different companies is difficult in the building industry. A

Contractor and Subcontractors can say they will work together from the beginning of the project, but as

soon as something goes wrong they separate forming their own conclusions instead of working together

and sharing the risk and reward. As you can see, forming an integrated team is widely a behavioral issue

and it is something that needs to be overcome because the reward for being on a team can greatly

outweigh working separately on a project. Overall, the main idea for a project is to give the client the best

product as humanly possible and by making decisions early on in the project can greatly benefit the client

as well as working together because more ideas and solutions will flow between everyone.

Another issue that was discussed during the session was that it is hard to get certain owners on board with

the IPD concept because they do not see the benefit for them. The outcome of this discussion resulted in a

few intriguing points with one of them being that owners are not educated enough to fully accept the IPD

method. The owners worry that they will be paying a premium for the subcontractors that have experience

with IPD and certain construction methods. The idea that was brought up in the group was that in order to

start implementing IPD it would be a good idea to find the sophisticated owners where they have an

invested interest in the whole big picture. By targeting these kinds of owners, hopefully others will see the

full benefit of having an integrated team. One other intriguing point that came about from the

conversation was the idea that IPD cannot be done alone. For example, when Building Information

Modeling began in the industry, contractors were able to produce models in house without the help of

others whereas with employing IPD you have to rely on everyone else in the industry for this to be

successful. IPD in my opinion is more of an abstract concept because there is not one answer that can

solve the problem or at least no one believes there is from the conversation in the break-out session.

This idea of assembling an integrated team is very stimulating and there are a few different aspects I want

to look at for my research. One research idea I had was to break down two different contract documents,

one for a project with an integrated project team, and one contract for a project with a design build team,

and analyze the gaps and differences between the two. I would like to breakdown and try to figure out

where that trust can be implemented into the contract documents and phase of project to make IPD

successful. The other research ideas I had were figuring out how to effectively communicate with others

on how to use IPD through different forms of education. In addition to this I want to look at how to

ensure a subcontractor who helps with initial design documentation for a job will be on that project the

entire time. Meaning they would not have to bid the job after they have already helped with the initial

design concepts. Both of these ideas relate directly with my thesis building and I hope to be able to find

some solutions, so that in the future IPD will be easier to implement.



Overall, the first session was eye-opening because we learn about these kinds of methods all the time, but

to actually hear the industry members talk about how difficult they are to implement is interesting. I

enjoyed that everyone was brutally honest and I do truly believe it is going to be difficult to implement

IPD to its fullest extent, but hopefully over time different strategies will be employed were trust will not

be a worry on projects.

Break-Out Session II – Strategies and Opportunities for taking BIM into the field

The beginning of this session began with discussing what industry members were using in the office and

out in the field. The general consensus that I got from everyone was that they all used 3D Coordination

and 4D Modeling and were starting to implement the Apple IPADs into the field for punchlists, quality

control, and a few other means and methods. This session was completely different than the first session

that I attended because this session mainly discussed what was

out in the field whereas the IPD session looked more into

analyzing what it was and how it needs to be changed. The good

aspect about BIM is that it is extremely prevalent in the industry

and the need now is looking at how to take the model into the

field and use it effectively. One of the biggest issues with

building a model is ensuring its accuracy. Anybody can throw

some rooms and systems into a model, but the biggest question is

how is it done effectively so that the owner could use the model

years down the road when he/she wants to do a renovation, fix an

issue, etc.? I gathered from the session that mostly every

company is using an Apple IPAD on their construction sites. One

idea that was mentioned and I believe was being used on a site

was implementing a portal for the owner to track everything that

is going on with the project. Some items that they can track

include when deliveries will be arriving as well as being able to

open the latest models of the building. Granted this does not have to be done on an IPAD but it is one

possibility.

Another way companies are using the IPAD in the field is for coordination. They can upload the drawings

to the IPAD and go out into the field to figure out different issues and track them via the IPAD. This is

useful because the IPAD provides an immediate solution to tracking and coordinating with the field staff.

I felt there were more questions asked than answered within this discussion and there was more of a

debate between different industry members on the right way of utilizing these types of pieces of

technology. I enjoyed listening to the industry members because it was a good way to see where I could

focus my research in order to answer some of their burning questions.

I thought the most surprising and interesting way a few of the industry members were utilizing 3D

modeling was through communicating safety concerns for different aspects of their projects. For example,

they would show how to excavate a certain area properly and safely through the use of 3D modeling. I

believe this is very effective because safety is by far the number one concern on construction sites and

more time should be placed on coordinating the logistics to ensure that no one will get hurt.

Figure 11: Apple IPAD in the Field

www.apple.com



After listening to what everyone had to say about different opportunities for taking BIM into the field, I

formulated a few ideas on my own. The different areas I want to look into include implementing

augmented reality into interior spaces to further communicate design details to the client and I would also

like to look into what the labor workers would like to see out in the field because ultimately they are the

ones installing the work and if I can make their lives easier with some form of technology I want to do it.

Both of these ideas work well for 7700 Arlington Blvd. because understanding all the finishes that are

going into individual spaces is challenging. Overall it was a good session and I was able to create research

ideas that will hopefully help projects in the future.

Afternoon Panel Discussions

The first panel discussion included four industry members and their views on the economy and how to

differentiate oneself in a down economy. The main point that I got out of this discussion was that the

economy is never going to go back to what it was and that the new economy is going to be about working

smarter. This means that different companies could branch out into specialty markets or implement

different construction methods on projects that others do not, and do jobs in industries that will never fade

such as healthcare. The panel broke it down that when looking for a job, everyone in Architectural

Engineering comes out with the same type of education, but doing the extracurricular activities and

differentiating yourself from another person is vital in this industry. Some research ideas that came about

from this discussion are finding out what exactly are the differentiating factors that set someone apart

from another. Another idea would be to take a look at different financial statements from over the years

and try to formulate what could happen in the future to the economy based on these statements. The

second panel just discussed different individuals’ experiences in the field and their thoughts on how they

look at the industry with having that experience.

The meeting was educationally in many ways and overall provided me with many different research ideas

for my thesis building. It is always nice when an industry member brings you back down to reality with

the different ideas that formulate from the sessions and discussions that were talked about at the meeting.

Hopefully the spring semester will prove to be successful in its entirety with all the research that will be

done for 7700 Arlington Blvd.



Problem Identification and Technical Analysis Options

Technical Analysis Method #1: Integrated Project Delivery Approach

Problem: Material procurement was a huge challenge for this project and it involved a lot of time and

money to ensure the success of materials on site prior to job start-up. The owner invested money up front

in order to purchase and ensure certain materials such as the progressive collapse steel system. Another

problem with the initial design phase of this project was that the subcontractors that invested their time

and money were not guaranteed that they would win the bid to finish out the entire project. In my opinion,

this poses a huge business issue because as a general contractor you have to make the subcontractors

submit a bid and if they are not awarded the bid then there was no real benefit for them to help you from

the beginning. Granted more times than not, the subcontractor that has helped in the design phase will be

awarded a bid, but it is still not 100% guaranteed. The one subcontractor that invested a lot of their time

and money in the design phase was the steel contractor who helped with the complex progressive collapse

steel system.

Analysis: The research that I would like to explore for this problem is figuring out how to implement an

integrated project delivery approach from the very beginning of a project effectively. I want to be able to

create a process map of a traditional design-bid-build project and an integrated project to show the

difference between coordination and communication levels throughout the entire project lifetime. This is

going to involve an in-depth analysis of two different types of contracts in order to find certain gaps

within the language to show what needs to be changed. It is also going to involve communicating with the

general contractor’s field staff and office staff in addition to the steel subcontractor. I would like to create

a process that is efficient and beneficial to all parties involved and I believe using IPD on a job like 7700

Arlington Blvd. would be valuable. Also, I would like to figure out a way to guarantee that if the

subcontractor is putting forth money to help design certain systems for the building that they will be a

part of the entire project through the use of IPD.

Technical Analysis Method #2: New Mechanical System in the Northwest Building

Problem: Since this building is a renovation, some of the systems were to remain due to the owner’s

budget. The Northwest Building was to keep the control system and mechanical system that already

existed with minor improvements. Due to the unforeseen ceiling conditions, a mistake was made by the

general contractor resulting in time and money lost. In the end, the owner will benefit greatly from the

lost because a whole new control system will be put in place and tied in with the other two buildings. This

was a huge constructability challenge, as discussed prior, and it was a learning lesson because it is not

always better to skimp in areas that could potentially result in big changes.

Analysis: This problem leads me into many different areas of research with the main research focusing on

implementing the same SW Building mechanical system into the NW Building from the beginning of the

project. The reason I think this would be beneficial is due to the fact that these buildings are quite old and

Raytheon still occupied the space up until the very last moment. There was no way of telling that the

ceiling was going to look like spaghetti once it was opened. Since the Southwest Building and Northwest

Building are identical I would like to perform a cost analysis on what the difference would be if the same

mechanical system from the Southwest Building was installed in the Northwest Building. I would also



like to create a schedule analysis showing the time it would take to completely demo the space and install

the mechanical system. This then can be compared to the schedule of what actually happened on the site

due to the mistake as well as the schedule of what should have happened if there was no mistake on the

project. There are many areas of research that can be performed for the mechanical and control systems

which should provide a unique analysis in the end. In addition to the mechanical system being

implemented into the Northwest Building, I would also like to calculate the reinforcement that will be

necessary to install such big units on the roof. I will be able to incorporate a cost and schedule analysis for

this aspect of the research as well. Contact with the mechanical subcontractor would help provide some

insight on the feasibility of the analysis as well as feedback from the general contractor of the cost and

schedule impact implementing a new mechanical system would create.

Technical Analysis Method #3: Resequencing Renovation Activities

Problem: The time allotted for the demolition was not enough and ended up impacting the structural

aspect of 7700 Arlington Blvd. The project team had to create a new plan as to how they were going to

keep the schedule on time as well as get the demolition and structural systems installed. The plan that was

created ended up being extremely successful but costly because most crews worked double shifts in order

to get the worked completed. The big issue here which was discussed earlier is safety on the jobsite. This

project is not that small, so in my opinion different trades should not have to be on top of one another in

order to finish work.

Analysis: The analysis I would like to perform on this issue is figuring out a plan that could have been

implemented from the very beginning in the schedule to avoid a situation where many trades would be

working in one area. I would like to utilize the BIM model that was created for this project to show a

different way to sequence the work. Since safety is the number one most important part on a jobsite I

would also like to analyze the safety impacts that could happen through the use of both plans. The

research done for this issue is more of a case study of what actually happened on the jobsite and what

could have been done to prevent such issues. Eliminating the double shift will be one aspect of the plan

with productivity being another because having the core drilling crew move from floor to floor instead of

completing one floor at a time is wasteful. Navisworks and Microsoft Project will be the two main

programs that will be used for this analysis and my primary contacts will be with the project management

team.

Technical Analysis Method #4: Creating a Short Interval Production Schedule

Problem: There are many areas throughout the project from the initial design phase to construction that

has created challenges for the design team. The problem is that coordination is a tremendous part of the

day to day task and 7700 Arlington Blvd. has a pretty complex schedule. There seems to be many areas of

the job that have repetitive work, but got thrown off schedule due to the critical path. Always having these

issues on a project is not always good because it could ultimately push back the finish date and increase

costs.

Analysis: The area of study I want to look into is creating a short interval production schedule for the

repetitive activities on the jobsite. By creating this type of schedule, the project team can put their focus

more so on the complex systems that have to be installed and the coordination with the tenant side of



work. The result I would like to get out of this is a reduction of the overall project schedule. In addition to

that, I would like to relieve some of the extra planning that has happened due to coordination issues and

unforeseen activities. To do my research I will analyze the current schedule and communicate with the

project team as to what they think the most repetitive activities would be since they have been on the

jobsite for awhile now. I will also divide the building into different areas in order to apply the SIPS

method and then analyze the results I get. I think this method of research will be very intriguing and

beneficial for understanding the commonalities on the job.



References

CIC Research Program at Penn State. (2010) “BIM Project Execution Planning Guide.” Version 2.0.

Elert, Glenn. (2004) “Density of Steel.” Accessed: 12 October 2011.

<http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2004/KarenSutherland.shtml>.

GBA Associates LP. (2011) “7700 Arlington Blvd..” Accessed: 22 September 2011.

<http://7700arlingtonblvd.com/dhhq.html>.

McGraw_Hill Construction. (2011) “Integrated Project Delivery.” Accessed: 11 November 2011.

<http://www.ipd-ca.net/>

Raytheon Company. (2011) “Raytheon Company: Customer Success is Our Mission.” Accessed: 22

September 2011. <http://www.raytheon.com/ourcompany/>.

Reed Construction Data. (2011) “RS Means Costworks Online Construction Cost Data.” Accessed: 22

September 2011. <https://www.meanscostworks.com/>.

RSMeans. (2010) “RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data, 2011.” 26th Annual Edition.

U.S. Green Building Council. (2011) “U.S. Green Building Council.” Accessed: 17 October 2011.

<http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=220>.



Appendix A

2011 PACE Roundtable Worksheet

technical assignment ii - pennsylvania state university · technical assignment three is intended...

Documents